Pauger

That is the absolute maddest front axle setup I have ever seen! It looks the 4L axle between the U-joints should be replaced by a 3L though.

I haven't measured, but I would guess it's around 50 cm. It's not very agile with its 85 cm long chassis.

I'm one of those who have big visions for future projects, but never really has enough patience to finish them - and if I do, I'm not satisfied enough with it to bother presenting them. This time though, I think I'm on to something. I've always been fascinated by big mobile cranes, especially the ones with lattice booms suits LEGO building very good. There has been built some really nice replicas of such cranes, like Dennisbosman's, erikleppen's and M_longer's. I have chosen to build what I find to work best functionally and aesthetically, rather than replicating a real crane. So far, I've only done the chassis: It has 12 wheel steering controlled by the HOG at the back. I have "cheated" slightly by making the two front axles steer with the same angle, this was necessary because I wanted to avoid any gear increase between the axles as it would be likely to jerk the steering. There is a dummy V8 engine connected to axles #5&6. The three levers in the front controls four motorized functions in the chassis: 1. Rotation of the invisible superstructure. 2, 3 and 4: Swivel, extract and deployment of the stabilizers. Most difficult by far was the stabilizers. The goal was to make them fully functional and controlled from the chassis without using seperate motors in each stabilizers. The solution was to mount them on seperate turntables, and use the same technique as in 8043 and 8258. To make the deployment of the stabilizers possible after being extracted I've used the old gray 20 tooth double bevels sliding on a 12L axle as they stick very poorly. More pics can be seen at Brickshelf as soon as it's approved. A proper presentation and videos will probably come when I finish it.

Nothing wrong with writing one anyways. Different persons have different views and opinions. Besides, you are probably the best at making reviews for technic sets on EB.

I recall having a 15L liftarm left after building it. Quite unusual.. never built the b-model though.

Do we know if there is diffs on both rear axles? I can't imagine what the "excuse" for not having would be...

My point was that I think 9395 and 8265 are very similar. The front loader needs a motor and a gearbox more than the tow truck (and is also more useless without a motor), but still... 8041 is a prime example of bad joke, 9395 seems nowhere near as bad.

Tell me Anio, where is the massive difference between 8265 - "une excellente surprise" and 9395 - "a bad joke"? I agree with you in the sense that such a low function/part ratio is a sign of a bad technic set though, in this case the problem mostly lies in the concept itself, not in the execution of it (except for the stupid towing fork which as usual is fixed). @JunkstyleGio: "American" market? This is LEGO. It's universal - even if it has a bonnet.

It's ok to say that the sets are better or worse (personally I think this looks rather good), but to complain about the size of the sets is just ridiculous. Most people have a budget. Besides I doubt any 1H wave has ever had such a high average piece count, so no sign of recession in that way.

The minimog and the crawler crane appears to have the old triangle part. Edit: Oh.. you said that the new triangle parts were from the minimog, but at least the yellow ones on the crane are the old type(?)

8069 is probably the best set in its price class. The good thing about it imo is that it's not in any way a copy of 8455. The designer has approaches the task of building a backhoe in a completely different way, and does that just perfectly. The build and looks of 8265 are just magnificent, its weakness is the hard steering and the endless cranking if you don't motorize it.

You should also consider that 8258 is getting old now, and they don't seem to be available at the LEGO site anymore. This means that the price for a new one will start increasing rapidly, so you shouldn't wait for too long. 50 euros for 8053 is indeed a bargain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpgM9XWS-90

If you want to steer multiple axles in for example a long and heavy mobile crane, the axles will twist and make the steering jerky and less responsive. I can imagine metal axles to do wonders in such cases.

...

Two years in a row now with pneumatics, and we don't know what the second wave of 2012 brings. You seem desperate davidmull?

Well spotted:) I must admit I just assumed the gears were connected to the stabilizers. They probably don't lift the truck though, the axle pin with bush don't appear to allow that.

Sort of..

7 studs wide and 1 stud in height. I can't imagine how little time and care is spent on designing that part of the crane.

Cool how they've managed to make the same functions as 8258 with much fewer pieces, don't like the design of the crane though, some panels would be nice...

You guys sure don't have much faith with our witness, MSR1988 post nr5

What makes you think that?

Really? These are imo the most realistic and well scaled wheels Lego Technic has ever come up with. The perfect wheel for trucks. If they were half as thin they would almost look like wheel chair wheels. In most cases I'd agree with you though. The wheels from 8109, all sort of balloon tires, and even the new unimog tires, are to wide. I guess that is part of TLG's philosofy though - The further the wheels sticks out from the mudguards, the better.

That makes sense, I thought you meant an extra rear axle But with the 8258 fresh in mind, I'm not surprised about the result. I don't think that the danes care very much about what cars we have in Norway though. The only contribution we make to the car industry is this, and well... it probably can't tow much more than itself, and it isn't exactly something you would put tandem wheels on Edit: Changed my mind. Double rear wheels would probably interfer with the towing mechanisms. And as the truck is only 15 studs in width, I think it's only right that there is no tandem/dual rear wheels.

Exactly. Just look at how the 28t i the new diff mesh with a 20t double bevel and you'll understand that it will fit in this case as well. Tandem wheels on a pick-up of this size? meh